| OCR Text |
Show riparian rights in Connecticut. The Court further held that right of com- plainants to use of water in its natural flow was not a mere easement^ but was a right inseparably annexed to the soil itself*. Action Brought by Citizens of Wyoming against Citizens of Colorado to Enjoin Diversion of Water from Sand Creek within the State of Colorado. - It was heldi -iy that complainants who were in possession of the water of an interstate stream for irrigation purposes in Wyoming were entitled to an injunction restraining the diversion of water of a stream flowing from Colorado into Wyoming by subsequent appropriations who diverted one-half of the water into another stream^ entirely different in its course, for irri- gation of lands in. Colorado. Action Brought by Citizens of State of Nevada to Enjoin Diversions of Waters "of West Fork of Carson River by Citizens of State of California« - In this case 50 it appeared that the doctrine of appropriation prevailed in Nevada whereas common law governing riparian rights was in effect in Cali- fornia- It was held.that riparian owners in California and appropriators in Nevada of water of streams flowing from California into Nevada each had a right to have a reasonable apportionment of the water during the dry sea- son ;, and a decree was made giving each party alternately the right to use the water for a certain number of days during the dry season* ordering the upstream owners to return the surplus to the river. Howell vs» Johnson !?! and Morris vs« Bean 52 - In these cases the Court held to the following effects One who has acquired a right to the water of an interstate stream by prior appropriation, in accordance with the laws of the State where it was made* is protected in such right against subse- quent appropriations, although the latter withdrew the water within the limits of a different State. Rickey Land and Cattle Company vst Ililler and Lux 53 - Controversy arose in the case of Rickey Land and Cattle Company vs. Miller and Lux as to re- spective rights of the parties to the waters of the Walker River in the States of Nevada and California. It was held that the Federal Court in Nev- ada, and the California State Courts, had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter, and whichever Court first acquired jurisdiction was entitled to pro- ceed to final determination without interference from the other, this action being in personam and affecting private rights only. Morris vs. Bean. - This case 54 involves respective rights of the parties to the vaters of Sage Creek in Montana and Wyoming. It was held that, sub- Hoge vs. Eaton, 135 Fed. 1+11 (C.C. D. Colorado* 1905), 59#jiderson vs* Bassaman, ll+O Fed. 1I4. (C C.N.D. California, 1905). 52-Howell vs* Johnson* 89 Fod. 558 (1899). 5%iorris vs. Bean, l!;6 Fed. 1+23 (1906). 53Hiokey Land and Cattle Company vs. Miller and Lux, 152 Fed. 11; 218 U. S» 258j 5h L» Ed. 1032; 31 S. Ct. 11 (1910). iwMorris vs. Bean, 123 Fed. 6l8j lij.6 Fed. 1+23j Affirmed in I59 Fed, 651: 22X Ue.S» ^85; 55 L. Ed. 821; 31 S. Ct. 703 (19H)*' -106- |
